Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 July 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< July 24 << Jun | July | Aug >> July 26 >
Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.


July 25

[edit]

02:23, 25 July 2024 review of submission by 2001:D08:1288:27B5:1:0:539D:86AC

[edit]


Extended content

English Series On 2 is an English series drama slot that airs at 8.00 - 9.00 pm, Friday - Sunday, on TV2.

2001:D08:1288:27B5:1:0:539D:86AC (talk) 02:23, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not paste the entire draft here. I've collapsed it. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 02:54, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

02:44, 25 July 2024 review of submission by 2001:D08:1288:27B5:1:0:539D:86AC

[edit]

Don't let Waxworker was removed & delete at Draft:List of programmes broadcast by TV2 (Malaysia). Waxworker Please open from the lock on List of programmes broadcast by TV2 (Malaysia) 2001:D08:1288:27B5:1:0:539D:86AC (talk) 02:44, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've no idea what, if anything, you're asking, but there already exists an article on this subject. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:30, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing (and other interested editors), I believe the IP is upset because editor Waxworker removed unsourced content that they wanted included in the article. The article is semi-protected for persistent disruptive editing so they cannot re-add the unsourced content. Definitely a novel way of approaching the situation. StartGrammarTime (talk) 08:59, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly your deciphering skills are more advanced than mine... DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:18, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What can I say, I spent most of my career working with academics in the medical field...if you thought doctors' tendency to abbreviate in awful handwriting was bad, you ain't seen nothing yet. StartGrammarTime (talk) 01:17, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:17, 25 July 2024 review of submission by Aruns012

[edit]

Why The Page Has Been Removed Aruns012 (talk) 07:17, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aruns012: the page hasn't been removed (whatever that means); this draft has been rejected, and is awaiting speedy deletion, as non-notable and promotional. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:30, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:44, 25 July 2024 review of submission by 4everbg

[edit]

I am doing something wrong with the citations, but I cannot understand what. I add citation sources, I have References at the bottom, yet I am not citing properly and any help is welcomed :) 4everbg (talk) 09:44, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@4everbg the citations are proper, but you'll need to add more. As your draft is about a living person, we need citations for all statements. Currently the entire "Personal life" and parts of the "Early life and education" sections are unsourced. It is also unclear how she meets our notability guidelines for people. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 09:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much! 4everbg (talk) 13:25, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:47, 25 July 2024 review of submission by Ouill

[edit]

I'm not quite sure I understand the reasons for the rejection. The page Notability_(academics) says that for academics, secondary sources on their bibliography are may not exist (this would typically be the case for a person who died when internet was in its early stages), and are typically not required. Instead, it must be clear that the contribution of the academic to their field should be significant. Here the academic had 2 different special volumes dedicated to his memory shortly after his death, with well-known international experts in 2 different fields contributing to the volume. This is really a clear, concrete sign of the impact of the researcher.

I haven't mentioned in the article that he was an editor of Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series B, one of the top journals in combinatorics, during several years and until his death. Should I add it ? I don't have an online reference for that (the journal does not record his former editors), but editors appear on the cover of all physical volumes so it is easy to check if your have access to the physical volumes. Ouill (talk) 09:47, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ouill: I think it's debatable whether those memorial publications are enough proof that he meets WP:NACADEMIC #1; perhaps, perhaps not. Therefore, if he was the chief editor of the journal you mention, then it is certainly worth including in the draft, as that sounds like it would directly satisfy NACADEMIC #8. We do need to see evidence of that, though; it isn't enough to say that evidence can be found somewhere. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:11, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification. Ouill (talk) 07:14, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:44, 25 July 2024 review of submission by BlueRoses13

[edit]

Hello editors,

On July 7, my draft for Linda Rabbitt was rejected:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Linda_Rabbitt

The same day, on my Talk page, I asked the responding editor to clarify his objections, while I provided additional support, at length. He did not respond:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BlueRoses13#Your_submission_at_Articles_for_creation:_Linda_Rabbitt_(July_6)

On July 17, I followed-up with the editor on his Talk page. On July 18, he said they'd get back to me:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SafariScribe#Can_you_help_me_understand_why_you_rejected_my_draft_for_Linda_Rabbitt?

It is now July 25, and I haven't heard back.

I'm reluctant to ping this editor again; I don't want to be a pest, especially since he is super busy elsewhere:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/SafariScribe

Yet I remain in the dark and eager to contribute. Any chance another editor can take a look? I'd be grateful for your take.

Thank you kindly.

Sincerely, BlueRoses13 (talk) 10:44, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft submission process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted.
If the other editor is busy, they will likely get around to you when they can. Please be patient.
You have basically summarized Linda's resume, and not independent reliable sources that offer significant coverage of her, detailing what makes her a notable person as Wikipedia defines it. That she runs a large company isn't sufficient- you need to have sources that discuss what they see as important/significant/influential about her. Does she run the company with a unique business strategy? Had a particular personal influence on the construction industry in the Washington area? Something like that. 331dot (talk) 10:56, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot Many thanks for your speedy reply and for clarifying the difference between "declined" and "rejected"; I was unaware of this distinction.
As to Linda's importance, here are 3 quotes that clarify her notability — I think the first speaks directly to your question as to whether she's influenced the construction industry:
1. She is "widely viewed as a pioneering female executive in the construction industry" (Bisnow).
2. She is ”one of the most influential people in Washington area business” (The Washington Post).
3. She is “one of the most powerful women in the business community" (Washingtonian).
Does this help?
Thank you again.
BlueRoses13 (talk) 16:40, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BlueRoses13, you aren't covered in the dark and I am sorry for not following up. My analysis for declining the draft was that, while she owns a company, her style and biography shouldn't be inherited only from being the CEO and founder of it—Rand. Entrepreneurs are sometimes difficult to establish notability, but here's a helpful analysis to help you further. Don't think that the personal life and background offers notability. No, everyone can be educated even in a notable school and get a publication for that. Your interest should be a) Who's Linda and why would she be considered as a notable woman? Is it only founding and being the CEO of Rand b) Being the CEO can be notable but not an assurance. Is their any unique way she handles the industry?—independent evidence of sources—lacking promo and advertorial contents c) Are there publications of her about how she has been successful?; series of books or articles on newspapers and magazines d) Show publications that has significantly covered her while being independent of her status as just the CEO of Rand e) When we exclude Rand, is there anything notable about her? Here if there isn't, then Rand deserves an article and your draft becomes a redirect to it. Having said that, serving as a board member isn't a necessity but can be if she has served in multiple notable companies. These are my analysis and another editor can object or suggest otherwise. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 11:08, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SafariScribe Thanks so much for your detailed analysis. I’m most grateful for the time you took to identify these specifics. Let me see if I can respond.
a. Who's Linda and why would she be considered as a notable woman? Is it only founding and being the CEO of Rand
I think she satisfies WP:BIO for two reasons.
First, she is "widely viewed as a pioneering female executive in the construction industry" (Bisnow). Specifically, she's one of the only female CEOs in the construction industry (The Washington Post), and the company she founded and runs is D.C.'s largest, woman-owned construction contractor (The Washington Post).
Second, she is "one of the most powerful women in the business community" (Washingtonian). The Washington Post calls her “one of the most influential." Specifically, she’s served on the boards of — and, in some cases, chaired — what are generally regarded as the two most influential business groups in the nation’s capitol: the Federal City Council and the Greater Washington Board of Trade. And she chaired one of 12 regional banks (Richmond) which make up the Federal Reserve System.
c. Are there publications of her about how she has been successful?; series of books or articles on newspapers and magazines
Yes indeed! In 2016, Linda, her philosophy, and her success were profiled in a Harvard Business School case study. HBS case studies are big deals.
Similarly, the Washington Post profiled her success in both 1998 and 2002.
Another profile comes from the Washington Business Journal (Peter Kaplan, “In a hard-hat world, she’s a success by anyone’s standards,” Washington Business Journal, December 16-22, 1994, page 18). This one is not online, but I can share a PDF if you’d like.
d. Show publications that has significantly covered her while being independent of her status as just the CEO of Rand
Check out this article in the New York Times that highlights Linda's role in financing an executive education program, at George Washington University, to teach women how to be corporate board members. See also this profile in the New York Times that tells Linda's life story.
e. When we exclude Rand, is there anything notable about her? Here if there isn't, then Rand deserves an article and your draft becomes a redirect to it. Having said that, serving as a board member isn't a necessity but can be if she has served in multiple notable companies.
Yes, she’s served on the boards of directors of — and in some cases chaired — entities that each have their own Wikipedia pages:
-Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond
-Willis Towers Watson
-Children's National Medical Center
-The Economic Club of Washington, D.C.
Also, she's been the president of the Washington chapters of Commercial Real Estate Women and the International Women's Forum.
Finally, she's received various recognitions from entities that each have their own Wikipedia page:
-In 2016, the Horatio Alger Association of Distinguished Americans named her “lifetime member.”
-In 2008, the nonprofit youth organization, Junior Achievement, inducted her into the Washington Business Hall of Fame.
-In 2012, the National Association of Corporate Directors named her a Director of the Year.
-In 2018, Commercial Real Estate Women gave her the inaugural Joseph Stettinius Jr. Leadership Award, which recognizes a leader in the real estate business.
I've incorporated the above details (with the exception of the last 4 recognitions) in Linda's draft. What do you think?
Thank you again for your help.
Sincerely,
BlueRoses13 (talk) 16:52, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:33, 25 July 2024 review of submission by Artistdrdebasis

[edit]

I am a new Wikipedia editor and asking help for publish the said article. I could not understand the problems. Please help for further processing. Artistdrdebasis (talk) 12:33, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Artistdrdebasis: your draft is completely unreferenced, and provides no evidence that the subject is notable.
Also, note that you shouldn't be writing about yourself in the first place; see WP:AUTOBIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:11, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:30, 25 July 2024 review of submission by Anshley Raggoo

[edit]

What should I do for Wikipedia Users has access to this information? Anshley Raggoo (talk) 18:30, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Anshley Raggoo: This draft has been rejected, is awaiting speedy deletion as blatant and irreparable advertizing/promotion, and will not be considered further. What is your connexion to Spine Footwear? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:34, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say, "spine footwear" sounds horribly uncomfortable and a tad macabre. --bonadea contributions talk 19:27, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User blocked. 331dot (talk) 18:38, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:46, 25 July 2024 review of submission by Artlin2

[edit]

Regarding review for submission. Aside from Instagram, please note and check under References on the draft page "Chitra Ramanathan" for verifying different publications by different art-related and art industry sources, including interviews and biographies written on the artist. Artlin2 (talk) 19:46, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews and press releases do not contribute to notability, as they are not independent sources. 331dot (talk) 21:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is the general nature of your conflict of interest? 331dot (talk) 21:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please define conflict of interest is, and secondly what would define independent sources for this article's re-submission by Geoffrey Lane. The subject of the article will not be re-submitting it, and so who would be? Artlin2 (talk) 22:17, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Artlin2, you can find more info about conflicts of interest at the page linked on your draft: WP:COI. In short, if you personally know Ramanathan, you are likely to have a conflict of interest. We are asking, basically - how do you know her?
Independent sources are sources that have been created without any connection to the subject. For example, an interview is not independent because the interviewer has spoken directly to the subject. On the other hand, a book about the Tudor dynasty is definitely independent as the author is writing solely because of their interest in the topic.
Does that help at all? StartGrammarTime (talk) 01:34, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the response. The page was created by some wiki writers in 2022. So my question who would be identifying individual subjects for the written, as I will not be writing or editing. Artlin2 (talk) 18:54, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:44, 25 July 2024 review of submission by 2001:D08:1285:B74:1:0:58CE:17B

[edit]

The English Series On 2 slot is shown every Friday - Sunday, at 8:00 pm. 

2001:D08:1285:B74:1:0:58CE:17B (talk) 22:44, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IP editor, please stop creating and submitting drafts related to this topic [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6].
We know you want to add programs to List of programmes broadcast by TV2 (Malaysia), but this is not the way to do it. You are wasting your own time as well as the time of volunteer reviewers. Please use the talk page of the article to request the edits you want, and remember to provide reliable sources. If you continue submitting drafts like this, you are likely to be blocked. StartGrammarTime (talk) 04:32, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:11, 25 July 2024 review of submission by Xuexi8823

[edit]

I've written it repeatedly. But my writings were always rejected. I used reliable secondary sources as much as possible. I am really confused that reviews always just demand so-called reliable secondary sources', but they don't mention which quote or part had problems. It would be helpful if you pointed them out. Thank you in advance. Xuexi8823 (talk) 23:11, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Xuexi8823, sorry you've been waiting a while for a reply.
I'll start by saying that @Cabrils has given you some great advice in the comments on your draft already. Working your way through those suggestions would be a great start. You especially need to answer, on your talk page, the question as to whether you have a conflict of interest - this is extremely important. You should also not resubmit the draft until the issues Cabril raised have been addressed, or you run the risk of the draft being rejected on the grounds that you are unable to improve it and thus it will never be accepted.
To give you an idea of which sources are useful to you and which are not, I'll go through the first few and then you'll hopefully be able to work through the rest! Cabrils has already linked you to the relevant requirements for sources, so I won't repeat the links. As a reminder, if a source isn't reliable, independent, and significantly covering the subject, it does not establish notability. You need all three criteria met for each source you are using to show that Gromes is notable.
Source 1 (Frankfurter) is an interview with the subject, so it is not an independent source.
Source 2 (Wegotmusic) is also an interview, see 1.
Source 3 (Musiktage Mondsee) comes from a company she performed for, so it is not independent.
Source 4 (Deutscher) appears to be advertising her as a performer, so it is not independent.
Source 5 (RSI) tells us she won an award, which is perfect as verification, but it's too short to establish notability. I'm going to assume you only wanted this source to demonstrate she won the award, which is totally fine to do.
At this point I decided to skip forward and check only the sources that looked most likely to be notable, which were:
Source 15 (The Strad) is another interview with her, and primarily about her cello, so it's not independent and not significant coverage.
Source 16 (Violin Channel) is also about her cello, so it's not significant coverage.
So far I don't see any sources that look likely to be usable; I think you should probably cancel the current resubmission (so the draft isn't declined again) and go on a hunt for more sources. Remember that interviews don't help establish notability, and if she worked for or with a company then their site won't help either. Best wishes with finding some great sources, and happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 16:49, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @StartGrammarTime ,
Thank you for your feedback.
But I decided to give up writing the article because I realized that I would not be able to continue writing it and using quotes based on your advice.
After spending approximately 20 hours writing the article and searching for sources to satisfy the reviewers' requests as much as possible, I am now completely exhausted due to some rejections and too strict demands.
I don't think it's possible to find the quotes they require. I'm truly disappointed that my effort was wasted. But perhaps my prediction was too optimistic to write the article to satisfy the demands.
I tried to write the article to contribute to classic music lovers around the world, but I am absolutely tired to continue writing.
But again, thank you for your advice. I really appreciate it.
Best regards,
Xuexi8823 Xuexi8823 (talk) 19:26, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Xuexi8823, I'm sorry to hear this is the case. Unfortunately, a lot of people - a lot of subjects in general - aren't notable by Wikipedia standards, so it can be very frustrating to spend so much time working on a draft that doesn't really have a chance. Writing articles is the hardest thing to do in Wikipedia, and writing articles about a living person is the hardest of all. One last piece of advice for you is to read WP:BACKWARDS - this is how most new editors try to write an article, and I think you might have written your draft this way. Look for sources first; that way, if you don't find suitable sources, you won't waste any more time and effort. There are subjects I think really deserve an article, but I just can't find good sources and so I'm waiting until someone independent notices them and writes about them. Sometimes it's simply too soon.
I hope you stick around to edit articles, or come back to do so if you need a break right now. We have so many articles in need of a helping hand, and editing is much easier than writing a new article! You are always welcome to come and contribute as much or as little as you like to improve Wikipedia. StartGrammarTime (talk) 23:29, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_July_25&oldid=1237684905"